IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 3130 of 2003
Urmila Devi.................... Petitioner.
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The Home Secretary, Jharkhand
3. The Chief Secretary, Jharkhand
4. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand
5. The DIG, JAP-3, Dhanbad
6. The Commandant, JAP-3, Dhanbad
7. The State of Bihar
8. The Director General of Police, Bihar............ Respondents
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amareshwar Sahay
......
For the Petitioner : D.K.Dubey, Advocate
For the Redspondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, JC to AG
......
5/12.10.2009
Heard the parties.
The present petitioner Urmila Devi has been substituted in
place of her husband Anandi Singh since he died during the pendency
of the writ petition. Her husband Anandi Singh, who was a Havildar in
police force, was departmentally proceeded and was dismissed from
service on certain charges in the year 2000, which he challenged by
filing a writ petition before the Patna High Court in CWJC No.
8229/2000, which was allowed and the order of dismissal was set aside
by order dated 22/11/2000, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ
petition on the ground that no reason much less any relevant reason
has been assigned for not holding the departmental enquiry. By
quashing the order of punishment, it was observed that if the
disciplinary authority intends to proceed against the petitioner, it may
proceed in accordance with law.
It is after this order passed by the Patna High Court, a
fresh memo of charge was served on the petitioner as contained in
Annexure-4 to the writ petition whereby serious charge of misconduct
was made against the petitioner in discharge of his official duties. The
main charge as it appears was that because of his 33 innocent villagers
-2-
were killed by the terrorists apart and 30 villagers were seriously
injured by them.
It is after full fledged departmental enquiry in which the
petitioner participated and on the basis of the evidence adduced in the
departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer found the charges to be
proved against the petitioner. On the basis of the inquiry report the
disciplinary authority passed the order for dismissal of the petitioner
from service. The petitioner, thereafter, filed departmental appeal
against the order passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing him
from service. As it appears from the order as contained in Annexure-8
to the writ petition dated 05/10/2002, the appellate authority after full
application of mind and on consideration of the materials on record
also confirmed with the findings and views of the disciplinary authority
and, thereby, dismissed the appeal.
It is against these two orders passed by the disciplinary
authority as well as the appellant authority; the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.
Mr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
fairly submitted that so far as on the merit of the case is concerned,
there is nothing much to argue in the writ petition but so far as the
quantum of punishment is concerned, he submitted that since the
petitioner has died and now his widow has been substituted in his
place and, therefore, a sympathetic view be taken in the matter so that
the widow can have some monetary benefits for the rest of her life.
I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Dubey but
I am constraint to hold that in view of the serious misconduct
committed by the husband of the petitioner and due to his in action the
33 villagers had to loose their lives and, as such, no sympathetic view
-3-
can be taken in such a case of serious nature. The punishment of
dismissal from service cannot be said to be excessive in any manner.
Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ application is
dismissed. However, so far as the other amount payable to the
petitioner such as GPF, Insurance etc. it can be made available to the
petitioner if she applies for the same and the same is payable to her.
(Amareshwar Sahay, J)
Mukund/-